Debates of May 26, 2005 (day 2)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I certainly have to agree with the Member that the dust in the small communities and the communities across the North is an issue that has been a problem for some time. We do have some money budgeted in the community governments formula to deal with dust suppression. Many communities have come forward to indicate that there is a need to look at this in terms of looking at putting more money towards it.

We, as a government, have undertaken a study to look at the situation in the different communities, to look at the different methods that could be utilized to suppress dust. We have looked at chipseal; we are looking at different types of dust suppression that are available in other jurisdictions. That study is in its final draft form. We will be reviewing the results in the next week or so, as soon as time allows us. We will be glad to share that with the committee members, and we would also be open to consideration to look at our business plan to see how we can accommodate that request that is being made by the Member. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Time for oral questions has expired. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to return to item 7. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, for indulging my request. There is something that was brought to our attention earlier today that really demands a review and it should start today. My question is for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. It regards the message that we received this afternoon in his statement of a $36 million clawback from Ottawa as a result of a corporate tax change some five years ago. I am wondering on this one, Mr. Speaker, do we call 911? Do we call a forensic accountant? What is going on here? This is a considerable turnaround in our financial fortunes here from, as the Minister said, a $44 million surplus that was on the books. But today that, along with couple of other things, is turning into an $18 million deficit. Mr. Speaker, my question is, is this $36 million clawback real money? How are we going to repay this? What is the process involved here? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Return To Question 23-15(4): Reduction In Corporate Tax Revenues

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I can say it's not Canadian Tire money.

---Laughter

We received the message and we were notified that in fact a company that had filed a tax return in the Northwest Territories was writing some prior years' losses against that filing and our portion of that filing that reimbursement, I guess, to the company is $36 million. We were working with the federal government trying to ensure that on the other side of the scale there is an increase to the transfer side as our corporate tax or own-source revenues, as we call them, also impact on transfers.

There is a bit of a problem with that, because the new way that funding is flowing from Ottawa is on a straight level that has been agreed to until the Expert Panel on Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing does its work. At that point we will know how own-source revenues impact us, but we are continuing to work with Finance Canada to ensure that we are not at a net loss here initially. That is a loss and that is why in our fiscal position we have had to account for that liability and we know that the money will be taken out of the corporate tax payments that we would receive from the federal government.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 23-15(4): Reduction In Corporate Tax Revenues

Okay, thanks. I think we will need an engineer, scientist at least, to help us connect all the dots. The explanation shows one of the frustrations that we deal with here, which is the complexity of our relationship with Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, I guess to the point of how does this impact or is this going to impact this year or in the near term, Mr. Speaker. Is this $36 million clawback going to impact our ability to continue our program spending or capital investment? Are we going to get hit on that side of our programs? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 23-15(4): Reduction In Corporate Tax Revenues

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the impact we feel the most would be on the surplus we had accounted for during the budget process. This budget year and the upcoming budget years, there is going to be a small impact. We will not be reducing the current expenditures that we have voted for and put in the budget, so there will not be a reduction scenario coming as a result of this information. Again, there are a number of other avenues that we are working on with the federal government which could impact us in a positive way that might offset this, but that’s still up in the air as to what that might be. But for the immediate fiscal year we are in, there will be no negative impacts in the sense of reductions or curtailing our capital spending. We are going to continue with the plan we have put before us. We don’t have right now a plan to change what would be in the upcoming process for next year. Again, there are a fair bit of avenues or issues that we are dealing with with the federal government that could impact the next year. As for this year, there will be no changes to our current fiscal strategy. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise with further questions for our friends on the other side of this Assembly. The Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation is smiling because he knows I can’t ask him any more questions today because the last one was taken as notice.

I have questions for the Deputy Premier of this Assembly, Mr. Floyd Roland, with regard to the TTC that’s being taken out of Yellowknife. The Minister of Health and Social Services had mentioned that there was a facility in Fort Smith. So from the sounds of this, there will be two in the South Slave. Maybe if the Deputy Premier could help explain the scenario. Is this going to be a bit of a political shell game? Is this why we are moving this from Yellowknife down to Hay River? Is it built on an economizing measure where we are enhancing a program, or is it due to money? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Deputy Premier, Mr. Roland.

Return To Question 24-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Health and Social Services has answered on a number of occasions in the House, he is preparing information to share with Social Programs and Members of this Assembly. It wasn’t a political shell game. The facilities that are being referred to are contract facilities that are run by Bosco Homes at this point. That is why there is reference to that facility, but information is being put together to be shared with Members of this House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Supplementary To Question 24-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the Deputy Premier could help emphasize some clarity. This sounds like a done deal and I hate to say it, but the Minister of Health has been in charge of the health portfolio for quite some time and I put a lot of faith in the fact that they must understand and know the depth of their portfolio. This decision must have been made quite some time ago, so there must be some information that they can share with us today. What was the business case that could justify this move? There must be some answer we could give this House today so we can move forward. We could be here for awhile. What does the Deputy Premier think of that? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 24-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, that sounds similar to a question asked earlier about the business case. Again, the Minister has provided to commit to providing that information to Members of this House before the end of this session. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Supplementary To Question 24-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am a little concerned that we have to wait until the end of this session; we should be waiting until tomorrow. Will the Deputy Premier be willing to commit to seeing if we could wield some of this high profile information, this high detailed information, because there must have been some business case put forward in order to decide to just move this out of Yellowknife. Would the Deputy Premier be able to bring forward this information tomorrow so we can deal with it in a timely manner, because we only have four days after tomorrow in this session to deal with this? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 24-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will work with the Minister in seeing what timelines can be put into this. He has committed to bring it forward before the end of this session. I am not sure if it will be Monday or Tuesday, but he has committed to getting that information and we will honour that before the end of this session. Thank you.

Thank you. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Supplementary To Question 24-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to hear at the same time when we get this high level, detailed information that really speaks of why we are moving it out of Yellowknife and affecting both the staff and the children, what was the motivation that is preparing to move this out of Yellowknife. The e-mails I am getting now don’t say we want to move to Hay River. The e-mails are saying what is going on. Can we hear some reasoning behind the motivation? What is the true motivation? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 24-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister stated already in this House, this government already has a number of initiatives underway to ensure that all communities in the Northwest Territories benefit from some of the services we provide in the territory. That is one of the things we have to also keep in mind. Again, the Minister has committed to providing information to Members of this House, so that they can see the trail that’s gone to this point. It’s not something that came up yesterday. It’s been discussed for some time and we will provide that information. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask about the recent announcement of Diavik diamond mine with respect to the waiving of the cost or the contribution of the employees towards travel to and from their work, so now employees who reside in southern Canada do not have to pay anything towards that travel. Certainly there was a very extensive socioeconomic agreement put in place at the time that Diavik and BHP were coming online, and our government, I believe, worked very hard to ensure that maximum benefits to northerners through the socioeconomic agreement addressing things like purchasing, contracting and employing northerners and some of the benefits staying here, the secondary diamond processing and the list goes on. So I was quite surprised to hear this announcement by Diavik. I have spoken to it publicly myself and I have certainly had it raised to me as a concern by people who are trying to build their communities with the addition of these workers who are very valued people and make contributions in our community.

Mr. Speaker, the government has been eerily quiet on this subject. I understand that these are businesses operating here in the North. They cite things like labour market competition, needing to be competitive in their remuneration and salary packages as their reasons for waiving this transportation cost, but I think they are doing quite well financially. I am a little bit disappointed with what they are doing. My fear, Mr. Speaker, is once you start flying employees in from the South, then why not just get a bigger airplane and put all the goods on too, and we will be back to the days of Nanisivik and Lupin and we’ll just fly overhead. There goes our diamonds and the people flying over.

So my concern is I haven’t heard much response from this government about this, which I think is going to have a major impact. So I would like to know if the Minister has had any communications with Diavik on this. What was the nature of his comments to them? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bell.

Return To Question 25-15(4): Diavik Employee Travel Policy

I have had several meetings with the company on this issue. I have had a phone conversation with Joe Carrabba who has now moved on. He has been replaced and I have met with his replacement as well to better understand why the company felt the need to do this. We had some discussion and I think the Member has rightly articulated the issues that the company was faced with: a very hot economy in Western Canada; having to compete with the oil sands for labour; having to compete with other projects; the startup of the diamond mine in Nunavut; the Tahera Mine and generally just a booming economy. All of these things were making it difficult.

Roughly 70 percent of their workforce is northern. Thirty percent of the workforce, and it tends to be in more professionalized skill areas, but 30 percent of the workforce currently flies in from the South, and in past they have been requiring them to pay for their travel and they’ve waived that.

Obviously we were concerned about this. We don’t want to see an exodus of people living in the North to the South. But I think after meeting with the company, I have been reassured that the company does have a vested interest in trying to get up to 100 percent in terms of northern workforce. It would be much easier for the company. They see a lower turnover in terms of northern employees who are more acclimatized. So the challenge really becomes one of training, and I think that’s why we’ve pinned a lot of hopes on programs like the Aboriginal Skills Employment Program, and the work of the Mine Training Committee, to make sure we get more people with the technical expertise trained so that we can move forward toward full employment from the North and not have to rely on southern fly-in employees.

So I did talk about our concerns about this, and the company I think is going to work as much as they possibly can to try and work with us and other partners to get our northern workforce increasingly trained. Of course, we’re challenged by the fact that we have the lowest unemployment in the country. Despite having pockets of unemployment in some of our smaller more remote communities, it can be up in the neighbourhood of 40 or 50 percent, we do, overall as a territory, have quite a booming economy. So our challenge is to try to get those underemployed people meaningful employment in industry and we’re going to work towards that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 25-15(4): Diavik Employee Travel Policy

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see this move as being regressive and counterproductive to what we’re trying to do, and that is to encourage people who work at the mines to live in the North, and everybody knows that the cost of living is higher here. I think that this move on the part of the company, I think they could have found other ways of compensating or increasing, enhancing the compensation of their employees other than this particular move. I’d like to ask the Minister how does he see this affecting other socioeconomic agreements that may be negotiated say for the Mackenzie gas pipeline. Does he not see this move and the acceptance of this move by our government without a lot of opposition to it as sending a wrong message to industry wanting to develop and take non-renewable resources out of the territory?

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 25-15(4): Diavik Employee Travel Policy

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are sitting down to negotiate a socioeconomic agreement in terms of employment for the pipeline. I don’t see the same reality there. We know that in terms of pipeline construction, there are so many more people required for this project than we can possibly hope to produce in the Northwest Territories in a short time. So the reality is that there will be quite a significant amount of employment that has to be sourced elsewhere.

I guess I would say that in terms of the diamond mines, the three different socioeconomic agreements are different. I’ve been personally involved in the negotiation of the one for Snap Lake. It doesn’t have the same kind of provisions and neither does the BHP agreement, but there is a provision in the Diavik Socioeconomic Agreement for them to fly their southern workforce in for four years after the start of operations, which seems to me was September 2003. So until something like September 2007 they can subsidize travel from the South. So there’s that four-year window. So they are in compliance of the socioeconomic agreement and that’s why it would be very difficult for us to come out and suggest that they weren’t living up to the terms of that agreement.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, one of the things they’ve been very successful at doing is having some of the highest northern employment targets of any industry around, and they are employing over 70 percent northerners. I think it would be hard for us to find another big industry company doing the same thing. So their track record is quite impressive. They have I think a good track record of wanting to work with northern companies, source from northern companies, get involved in community projects and they are living up to the terms of the agreement, and I guess that’s the bottom line. Now should employment targets fall below that, then we have to go back to the company and say we have a real concern here, now you’re not living up to the agreement and the terms of that agreement. But at this point it’s hypothetical because they are meeting that threshold test. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing it has been a long day, I will just ask one question and quite quickly to the Minister of Health and Social Services with regard to TTC. That being said, it may be a little bit of a lengthy one, but it will be fast. Mr. Speaker, I’m trying to understand why this government preaches decentralization, about being fair and equitable and making sure everyone gets a fair shot, but the bottom line is I think the Minister just mentioned Fort Smith has a facility somewhat of a similar nature, and the bottom line is now if we remove the one out of Yellowknife and put it in Hay River that will be two south of the lake. That means one region now has two, Yellowknife has zero, and the northern region has zero, as well. So, Mr. Speaker, I guess my clear question to the Minister is if you can’t provide the vehicle today, I’d be happy to receive it tomorrow. But the bottom line is why don’t you consider moving the one from Fort Smith to Hay River if we’re worried about backfilling on some facility that needs to be filled or extending the service appropriately, again, south of the lake when we’re losing it out of the central region? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Return To Question 26-15(4): Relocation Of The Territorial Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’ll give that request the consideration it deserves, as the Member has requested. The reality is a decision was made to move TTC from Yellowknife to Hay River, and it was a good decision. The capacity is there for Hay River to deliver that program and we’ve done our best to make sure we try to spread the resources around to the best of our ability as a government, though as we hear in this House from communities outside of Yellowknife that we should be doing more, we could be doing more. We take that into consideration when we try to make these decisions. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I have a written question for the Minister of Finance regarding the federal contributions to the NWT.

A number of potential new federal initiatives have been proposed for the NWT, such as gas tax revenue, Northern Strategy, infrastructure investment, for this fiscal year. Most if not all of these measures are contingent on the federal budget passing.

Could the Minister provide a detailed list of potential sources of new federal investments for the NWT this fiscal year?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a written question to the Minister of Finance.

What is the total amount of alcohol sales from the Norman Wells liquor store?

How many alcohol sales in total are there in the NWT?

What percentage of total revenue does the Sahtu region contribute to the total revenue by purchasing alcohol from liquor stores?

Are there any types of alcohol bans such as overproof alcohol in Canada?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document entitled Northwest Territories Tourism 2003-04 Annual Report. Thank you.

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Monday, May 30, 2005, I will move that Bill 10, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day for Friday, May 27, 2005, at 10:00 a.m.:

Prayer

Ministers' Statements

Members' Statements

Returns to Oral Questions

Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery

Oral Questions

Written Questions

Returns to Written Questions

Replies to Opening Address

Petitions

Reports of Standing and Special Committees

Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills

Tabling of Documents

Notices of Motion

Notices of Motion for First Reading of Bills

Motions

First Reading of Bills

- Bill 1, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1,

2005-2006

- Bill 2, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 4,

2004-2005

- Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Access to Information

and Protection of Privacy Act

- Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Education Act

- Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act

- Bill 6, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

2005

- Bill 7, Personal Directives Act

- Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act

- Bill 9, Municipal Statutes Amendment Act

Second Reading of Bills

Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters

Report of Committee of the Whole

Third Reading of Bills

Orders of the Day